posted
So what happenes when you've outlined a story that, in the end, is only manageable by writing 2 or 3 books? And now, having written the first, I am interested in publishing BUT what do you say when subitting to publishers?
"This is the first installment in a series of three," and do they take each of your books individually, or do you have to talk them into the whole series right away? Somehow the latter seems more difficultr and the former completely unlikely ...
As for your question, it is better if you don't say anything until an editor wants to buy the book (and it helps if the book can stand alone for the most part and the following book can work like a sequel instead of part two of three parts).
Of course, if your first novel is a blockbuster, you're set.
posted
I'm no expert on agents, and I'm not sure how this factors into the equation, but I've heard that agents don't really want to bother with a new client unless they think they can sell at least three books. So maybe in submitting to agents, mentioning it's the first book of a trilogy is a good thing.
Posts: 1517 | Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted
When I asked my agent when he wanted to see the second book in a series I am doing--he is pitching the first--he said when the first sells. Why?
Because if the first doesn't sell the second is not going to do any good.
posted
I think it might depend on the genre. In children's lit I've been told that it's a bonus to mention that its part of a series. I think the same is true for detective novels.
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted
It is a plus for any publisher interested in selling books. But this plus is more like a factor than a plus.
In other words, any finite number multiplied by zero is...you got it. All the "factors" that surround your book are just the same, they have no effect on whether or not your book is a zero.
posted
If it's fantasy, then about the only way you could sell it is a trillogy. Anything to try to reproduce tolkein....But I can't say for the other Genres. I think as long as you've got evidence that the next books will go somewhere then you could sell a series.
(BTW, just for the record I have sold exactly squat so don't take me too seriously.)
posted
Well, I appreciate it but I was hoping I could hear some specifics about the actual process. I mean, the first book does conclude ... but not really. If it was a stand alone book any ready would be aggravated at its ending, it demands a sequel with a painfully loud voice.
So, I think it's necessary for me to tell the publisher, the trouble is how.
posted
I think what's really necessary is for you to change it, either by cutting out enough that you can put it all in one book, or by modifying the first part so that it really seems to tie the important things up--leave it open for a sequel, but not requiring one.
Or, the third option, write something else altogether that stands on its own and sells well, and then market the trilogy.
posted
put these words after the short synop in your query:
The ending, while making this book stand on it own, also leaves open the possible return of (your words here about your book what will return or be unsolved etc.), making a series of books feasible. I have started on a second book.
posted
The first book should end in its own right, without requiring a sequel. This is a courtesy to the reader, one that many publishers are quite careful to show. At the end of the first book, the reader should have the option of continuing on to the series or leaving the book as it is. Look at what Jordan did with The Eye of the World. The man has become infamous for this never-ending series, but at the end of the first book and at the end of the first trilogy he gave readers the option of quiting with the story told. And he was already a writer with a long history of successful publication (this is part of what makes fans so nervous when he doesn't seem to be wrapping things up--people are worried he might die or something and leave the work unfinished).
The thing about a series of books that is different from serials is that every book is a fairly hefty investment of time and mental/emotional energy for the reader. You must give your readers the option of quitting after the first, with the story satisfyingly resolved. If you are going to go much over five books in the series, you might also give your readers another chance to quit after three or four books. After they've read ten or more books, you can probably assume that they don't actually want the story to ever end (this will be true of some, less true of others, and you will get complaints from both sorts--ignore them, if they are complaining about the eleventh book, that's their own fault).
If the first book doesn't show that courtesy, then readers will rightly reject it and some will blame the publisher, both of which make the publishers rightly leery of publishing first novels that don't end.
In other words, say what SR suggests in your query, but make sure that you're telling the truth. The book stands on its own and only after that does it leave open the possibility of a sequel.
posted
The hard part about wrapping up book one with a solid ending then doing book two is that it is not easy to write a second book that stands on it's own. You can't assume that the reader read book one, no should you assume so.
Second books are not easy to do, harder than making first books stand on their own--
posted
"Stand on its own." What exactly does that mean? Every single loose thread closed, or the main thrust of the book closed with enough loose threads to feed into the next book, but which can be considered red herrings in the first and not compromise the main thread?
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted
What about spin-offs? Are those a little taboo in writing? (Just like "Frasier" was a spin-off of "Cheers" ) I have enough characters for one out of the story I'm gonna write. Could everyone give me an opinion on that? Thanks for the replies.
posted
All the loose threads tied up means the end of life, the universe, and everything.
A story has dramatic structure because it is about a main unresolved tension that is resolved at the end of the story. If your story doesn't resolve the primary dramatic tension, then it doesn't stand on its own.
Put more simply, when a reader finishes readin the first book, it should be with the feeling that the story has come to a close, that there isn't part missing, that the final words should be "THE END" rather than "TO BE CONTINUED".
posted
This is something I often worry about with my current novels, actually.
Very briefly, it goes:
Main character is chosen as captain of ship to colonise first extra-solar colony. Various people try to "persuade" him not to take the position; he decides not to give in to them and fights for it. The ship leaves, and the antagonist is on board. He organises a mutiny, but the main character discovers what is happening in time and captures him. He says he was there for revenge, but the main character believes somebody else is pulling the strings questions him about who. He dies from a suicide drug (a slow acting poison) before he reveals the information.
-- break here --
The ship arrives at its destination and establishes a colony. Other ships arrive in the following months. Evil mastermind is on board one with a small army and takes over the colony for himself. Main character escapes, steals one of the ships, takes it back to Earth and returns with his own army to take the colony back. Then he confronts evil mastermind and kills him.
So there are 3 connected threads: - The mission of building the colony (spread across both books) - The antagonist in the first book trying to take control of that mission (in first book only) - The antagonist in the second book taking control of the colony, but eventually being forced out (in second book only, although hinted at in first)
I worry because, while the main source of conflict in the first book is obviously resolved, the main character has not finished his mission which is obviously central to the story. Plus, he has suspicions that lead him to speculate about what is to come in the second book, and he's fairly close. So, I wonder if this is too much to leave dangling for the reader, or if this was OK, and would just serve as a hook to ensure the reader would buy the second book
(On the subject of spin-offs, I think that's a great idea. Stephen King does it quite a bit -- a number of his characters from one book later appear in totally unrelated books, for instance Mike Hanlon from It appears later in Insomnia)
posted
Minor quibble before I address your main question: "He dies from a suicide drug (a slow acting poison)..." Since the general point of suicide drugs in this kind of situation is to avoid being questioned and avoid the possibility of an antidote being injected in time to prevent death, it makes no sense to have a slow-acting poison.
As for your main point, I think it's very possible for you to have a satisfying ending for book one while leaving it clearly open for book two.
The main character's primary mission in book one is not to establish a colony -- it is simply to arrive at the new planet. The antagonists of the book are trying to prevent him from doing that. He arrives at the end of book one -- he has achieved his goal. Yes, the reader knows that he now needs to establish a colony and that there may be problems in doing so, but that was not the focus of book one so the reader will be satisfied with the resolution of the main plot.
quote:Since the general point of suicide drugs in this kind of situation is to avoid being questioned and avoid the possibility of an antidote being injected in time to prevent death, it makes no sense to have a slow-acting poison.
It's an advanced poison that he took _before_ he was captured, and would have taken an antidote if he hadn't been. I think this is plausible, although I haven't thoroughly researched it yet and may end up changing my mind, and removing the 'hunt for the antidote before he dies' scene.
Have a binary poisen instead, one element is the poisen, the other is a common and ordinarily innocuous substance (or condition, such as anoxia) which will activate the first. You could make the second substance a commonly used interrogation drug or perhaps some physiological condition that the captive could still control (like holding his breath, see above).
Printer-friendly view of this topic
